Mo. Rev. Stat. » Chapter 386
Missouri Revised Statutes

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 386.430 (2026)

Burden of proof on adverse party

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MO-REVrevisor.mo.gov Justiaon Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

  386.430.  Burden of proof on adverse party. — In all trials, actions, suits and proceedings arising under the provisions of this chapter or growing out of the exercise of the authority and powers granted herein to the commission, the burden of proof shall be upon the party adverse to such commission or seeking to set aside any determination, requirement, direction or order of said commission, to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that the determination, requirement, direction or order of the commission complained of is unreasonable or unlawful as the case may be.

­­--------

(RSMo 1939 § 5703)

Prior revisions: 1929 § 5247; 1919 § 10535

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 56 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1958–2024 · leading case: State Ex Rel. AG Processing, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 120 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. 2003).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
State Ex Rel. AG Processing, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 120 S.W.3d 732 (Mo. 2003). · cites it 4× “Section 386.430; State ex rel. Associated Natural Gas Co.”
Verified Application & Petition of Liberty Energy (Midstates) Corp. v. Off. of Pub. Couns., 464 S.W.3d 520 (Mo. 2015). · cites it 3× “banc 2003); section 386.430, RSMo 2000. The lawfulness of the PSC’s order is determined “by whether statutory authority for its issuance exists, and all legal issues are reviewed 'de novo.”
Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Off. of Pub. Couns., 526 S.W.3d 253 (Mo. Ct. App. 2017). · cites it 8× “Section 386.430. The lawfulness of the Commission’s Report and Order refers to “ 'whether statutory authority for its issuance exists.”
State Ex Rel. Marco Sales, Inc. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 685 S.W.2d 216 (Mo. Ct. App. 1984). · cites it 4× “270, RSMo 1978; (3) The party complaining of an order or decision of the Commission must "show by clear and satisfactory evidence" that the order or decision of the Commission "is unreasonable or unlawful" as the case may be—§ 386.430, RSMo 1978; and (4) Although courts on…”
State ex rel. GTE North, Inc. v. Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 835 S.W.2d 356 (Mo. Ct. App. 1992). · cites it 3× “Section 386.430. Judicial review is restricted to whether the Commission’s order was lawful and reasonable.”
In the Matter of the Verified Application & Petition of Laclede Gas Co. to Change its Infrastructure Sys. Replacement Surcharge in its Laclede Gas Serv. Territory Missouri Gas Energy USW Local 11-6 Missouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n v. Off. of Pub. Couns., 504 S.W.3d 852 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). · cites it 3× “banc 2003); section 386.430, RSMo 2000. The lawfulness of the PSG’s order is determined “by whether statutory authority for its issuance exists, and all .”
State Ex Rel. City of West Plains v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 310 S.W.2d 925 (Mo. 1958). · cites it 4× “2d 614, 617 [1-4]; Section 386.430. "In all trials and proceedings growing out of the exercise of the powers of the commission before the courts the rates and schedules ordered by the commission are prima facie lawful and reasonable, and the burden of proof is upon the party…”
State ex rel. Union Elec. Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 399 S.W.3d 467 (Mo. Ct. App. 2013). · cites it 2× “The burden of proof is on Ameren, as the party adverse to the PSC’s Order, “to show by clear and satisfactory evidence that the determination, requirement, direction or order of the [PSC] complained of is unreasonable or unlawful.”
State Ex Rel. Missouri Gas Energy v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 224 S.W.3d 20 (Mo. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “See section 386.430. 2 We will affirm the order if it is supported by competent and substantial evidence on the record as a whole and not against the weight of the evidence.”
State Ex Rel. Associated Nat. Gas Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 706 S.W.2d 870 (Mo. Ct. App. 1985). · cites it 2× “Under § 386.430, RSMo 1978 (all statutory references are to RSMo 1978 unless otherwise indicated), the Company as the challenger carries the burden of showing by “clear and satisfactory evidence” that the order or decision is unlawful or unreasonable.”
State Ex Rel. Laclede Gas Co. v. Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 535 S.W.2d 561 (Mo. Ct. App. 1976). · cites it 2× “Even if we were to assume ar-guendo that Laclede could and did elect some variant procedure separate from that specifically specified by the statutes, that still would not enable it to escape from the existence of a wide discretion on the part of the Commission.”
State Ex Rel. Capital City Water Co. v. MIssouri Pub. Serv. Comm'n, 850 S.W.2d 903 (Mo. Ct. App. 1993). · cites it 3× “2 In its first point, the Company argues that the Commission was equitably es-topped and barred by laches from finding the contract “imprudent” based upon its earlier actions, specifically by (1) approving the contract prior to its execution, as evidenced by letters from the…”
Show all 56 citing cases →
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.